Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

With questionable copyright claim, Jay-Z orders deepfake parodies off YouTube

waxy.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 219 posts

Re: With questionable copyright claim, Jay-Z orders deepfake parodies off YouTube

#151

Post by mellow2020 »

kauffj wrote: post #51

CEO of LBRY here. These videos are welcome on LBRY. We'll have to get a real (i.e. not me commenting on HN) legal opinion should we get a take down request, but prima facie I don't see why these would be illegal. (If they are illegal and we are notified, we would put them on the company maintained blacklist, as we cannot remove anything from the network itself.) Edit: I wrote a rap on our perspective. If you're havin…

We need discussions in society about this stuff -- yes, even with people who might be too stupid for you to want to talk to them -- not just facts on the ground created by techies in ivory towers.

It used to be that jocks beating up nerds was an universally applauded activity, it's now rightfully seen as stupid and evil. The same will have to happen with people abusing their digital prowess against others, or the former will become untenable.

you can rap in tweets / but you don't want street / clown on us all / get your feet in concrete

Re: With questionable copyright claim, Jay-Z orders deepfake parodies off YouTube

#152

Post by searchableguy »

OrgNet wrote: post #65
Animats wrote: post #64

This was approached all wrong. The first highly publicized demos of singing generated like this should have been of dead people - Michael Jackson, John Lennon, Elvis. First, it's not clear who has the right to sue, and in what jurisdiction. Rights associated with those people have been transferred and resold enough times that there's no clear claimant. Second, many people have impersonated those voices, so there's a…

dead people's copyrighted work sues for copyright issues all the time... not sure how that would help.

Can someone explain to me how copyright being valid after the original owner's death progresses healthy competition? What benefit does it have?

Re: With questionable copyright claim, Jay-Z orders deepfake parodies off YouTube

#153

Post by pmachinery »

jimmySixDOF wrote: post #138
akersten wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I kind of feel like that's going to have to be the outcome at some point in the near future -- in fact, as soon as really convincing yet nasty deepfakes of senators and representatives start making the rounds and spreading on Facebook, I suspect a new law will get passed incredibly quickly. Ugh, that is the type of free-speech infringement that people should be worried about, not all this stuff about how YouTube ta…

Pop stars on YouTube ? Fair use & freedom of speech ? Deepfakes will be used to cause a war in the near future where people are killed and who are we going to point our DMCA take down requests at then ? What will the third world victims of some hate story stirred up by AI doctored footage care about first amendment protections in America ? Deepfakes are a clear and present existential danger to ourselves and others a…

> Deepfakes will be used to cause a war in the near future where people are killed and who are we going to point our DMCA take down requests at then ?

Wars are started based on disinformation, black propaganda and/or false flags anyway.[0] Nobody (at least who wasn't already spoiling for a fight) is going to start a war just because of a deepfake posted to Youtube.

> What will the third world victims of some hate story stirred up by AI doctored footage care about first amendment protections in America ?

This video was taken down, rightly or wrongly, due to American law. It's quite likely deepfakes are actually 'more legal' in some countries outside the US, due to differences in legislation.

For example, depending on political/sexual content, an Iranian or North Korean video host may be less interested in taking down a deepfake of Jay-Z than Youtube.

> Deepfakes are a clear and present existential danger to ourselves and others

The real danger with deepfakes (and other technology that the rich and powerful don't like, such as encryption) is overreaction and people tripping over themselves to call for even more limits on their own free expression.

> God help us all once we can't even believe what we see anymore.

And God help us all when we have no way to speak out any more. As shown in the link below, we never could believe what we see.

[0] https://www.globalresearch.ca/the-ever-growing-list-of-admit...

Re: With questionable copyright claim, Jay-Z orders deepfake parodies off YouTube

#154

Post by rustybolt »

sandworm101 wrote: post #135
crazygringo wrote: post #89

So if I understand this correctly... YouTube took these videos down based on a copyright (DMCA?) claim. Which of course isn't a court ruling or anything. At the same time, no court would ever uphold this removal, because it obviously falls under "parody" which is protected. (Otherwise shows like Saturday Night Live couldn't even exist.) After all, the end result is no different from a really good vocal impersonator.…

>> as soon as really convincing yet nasty deepfakes of senators and representatives start making the rounds and spreading on Facebook, I suspect a new law will get passed incredibly quickly. No. This isn't a new area of law. Legal "Deepfakes" have been around a long while. There is even a supreme court case covering the matter: Falwell, 1988. That involved a fake interview with Billy Graham, using his image and putti…

From [1]:

> In an 8–0 decision, the Court ruled in favor of Hustler magazine, holding that a parody ad published in the magazine depicting televangelist and political commentator Jerry Falwell Sr. as an incestuous drunk, was protected speech since Falwell was a public figure and the parody could not have been reasonably considered believable.

The post you're replying to explicitly talks about convincing deepfakes. Also, Falwell was a televangelist and political commentator, not a senator. So I don't think this court case is a good example.

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hustler_Magazine_v._Falwell

Re: With questionable copyright claim, Jay-Z orders deepfake parodies off YouTube

#155

Post by curiousgal »

sandworm101 wrote: post #135
crazygringo wrote: post #89

So if I understand this correctly... YouTube took these videos down based on a copyright (DMCA?) claim. Which of course isn't a court ruling or anything. At the same time, no court would ever uphold this removal, because it obviously falls under "parody" which is protected. (Otherwise shows like Saturday Night Live couldn't even exist.) After all, the end result is no different from a really good vocal impersonator.…

>> as soon as really convincing yet nasty deepfakes of senators and representatives start making the rounds and spreading on Facebook, I suspect a new law will get passed incredibly quickly. No. This isn't a new area of law. Legal "Deepfakes" have been around a long while. There is even a supreme court case covering the matter: Falwell, 1988. That involved a fake interview with Billy Graham, using his image and putti…

> If the 1988 supreme court wouldn't protect the reputation of a national religious leader, they aren't going to do so for politicians today.

Well that gave me a good chuckle! The fact that a supreme judge is appointed by the sitting president and confirmed by the Senate means that they can push whatever dogma the ruling party has.

Re: With questionable copyright claim, Jay-Z orders deepfake parodies off YouTube

#156

Post by [deleted] »

sandworm101 wrote: post #135
crazygringo wrote: post #89

So if I understand this correctly... YouTube took these videos down based on a copyright (DMCA?) claim. Which of course isn't a court ruling or anything. At the same time, no court would ever uphold this removal, because it obviously falls under "parody" which is protected. (Otherwise shows like Saturday Night Live couldn't even exist.) After all, the end result is no different from a really good vocal impersonator.…

>> as soon as really convincing yet nasty deepfakes of senators and representatives start making the rounds and spreading on Facebook, I suspect a new law will get passed incredibly quickly. No. This isn't a new area of law. Legal "Deepfakes" have been around a long while. There is even a supreme court case covering the matter: Falwell, 1988. That involved a fake interview with Billy Graham, using his image and putti…

[deleted]

Re: With questionable copyright claim, Jay-Z orders deepfake parodies off YouTube

#157

Post by paypalcust83 »

jerrysievert wrote: post #62
paypalcust83 wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I saw AC/DC in concert too. These guys were naked, doing backflips, bouncing off the walls, and breaking shit. Unless you're a sick puppy, hard living doesn't translate to entertainment value. I don't condone or value anyone's recreational extremophilia and I think your one-sided white-knighting is off-base.

that sounds an awful lot like The Impotent Sea Snakes - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impotent_Sea_Snakes

Not exactly. They were in the spirit of and homage to the original. They might not have been original but they brought the house down.

Re: With questionable copyright claim, Jay-Z orders deepfake parodies off YouTube

#158

Post by LatteLazy »

crazygringo wrote: post #89

So if I understand this correctly... YouTube took these videos down based on a copyright (DMCA?) claim. Which of course isn't a court ruling or anything. At the same time, no court would ever uphold this removal, because it obviously falls under "parody" which is protected. (Otherwise shows like Saturday Night Live couldn't even exist.) After all, the end result is no different from a really good vocal impersonator.…

I believe the DMCA defacto REQUIRES youtube (and others) to work like this. Once the DMCA take-down comes in, if they leave something up, they become liable if the court case goes against them. So if 1000 takedowns come in, and you correctly leave 999 videos up as fair use etc, you still get demolished on the other 1. Meanwhile the company requesting 999 incorrect takedowns owes you nothing.

This is a key problem with DMCA, it shifts all the risk/cost of deciding cases onto platforms, their only logical response is to take things down, so everything gets taken down.

Re: With questionable copyright claim, Jay-Z orders deepfake parodies off YouTube

#159

Post by codefisher »

But we expect this don't we from YouTube? Just as an example of how broken it is I have been live streaming at our local church, our parish priest decided to sing "Tantum ergo" which was written and set to music at best guess 1264. YouTube flagged it.

Re: With questionable copyright claim, Jay-Z orders deepfake parodies off YouTube

#160

Post by 8note »

akersten wrote: post #108
crazygringo wrote: post #89

So if I understand this correctly... YouTube took these videos down based on a copyright (DMCA?) claim. Which of course isn't a court ruling or anything. At the same time, no court would ever uphold this removal, because it obviously falls under "parody" which is protected. (Otherwise shows like Saturday Night Live couldn't even exist.) After all, the end result is no different from a really good vocal impersonator.…

> I kind of feel like that's going to have to be the outcome at some point in the near future -- in fact, as soon as really convincing yet nasty deepfakes of senators and representatives start making the rounds and spreading on Facebook, I suspect a new law will get passed incredibly quickly. Ugh, that is the type of free-speech infringement that people should be worried about, not all this stuff about how YouTube ta…

Major benefit: eventually, all the news networks will be able to decide that instead of whatever each candidate said, they all actually agreed that Medicare for all was the right choice, and that it will be the center of their platform.

And once elected, they'll be stuck doing it, or the news networks will decide that it did happen, and no one will be able to figure out that it actually was not. At that point, is there any difference?

Post reply on HN